Traffick - The Business of Search Engines & Web Portals
Blog Categories (aka Tags) Archive of Traffick Articles Our Internet Marketing Consulting Services Contact the Traffickers Traffick RSS Feed

Archive for the ‘Advertising’ Category

Improving ROI through SEO by COB (via Captain Picard)

Wednesday, September 19th, 2012

This was going to be a little post that basically said “Hey! Have you guys seen the National Car Rental commercial where they actually mention improving ROI through SEO?”

I’ve been loving those commercials, actually, since shortly after they started. I think I was hooked when the third character came along — the woman whose “core competency… is COMPETENCY.” I started mimicking that guy at the boardroom table who squints and points meaningfully when she makes a good point. He’s funny. And after all, she is Princess of Powerpoint!

And above all, I started digging the narrator’s voice. Delightfully over the top theatrical elocution… “pay for a mid-size, and take a fullsizeorrrrabove!!” Before long, “Just like you, business pro. Just like you.” became a catchphrase around our home.

It was only lately that I realized why I loved that voice! It’s Patrick Stewart! Tea. Earl Grey. Hot. Go to the End of the Aisle, Numbah One.

Those ad agency people may be sarcastically ripping ‘business pros’ they don’t really like, but this time, it worked like a charm. The overt takeaway for me as a customer was the main thing: I love being reminded that I can get to the airport and just march over to the vehicles with my Emerald Card. No lineups.

But looking into it a bit more (as I read up on the commercial online), there are actually a few more takeaways. Three, to be exact.

(1) No matter how good something is, some sad “Internet commenters” are going to hate on it. Sure enough, there they were on YouTube, denigrating Patrick Stewart of all people! I have a hard time believing everything is subjective in this life. I mean, “Zoom-Zoom” is stupid in my opinion, and I would never personally buy a Mazda just because of that. ;) But Jean-Luc Picard himself in a brilliant voiceover? Get out of town! So anyway, this week I ran across two really uplifting posts by 37 Signals co-founder Jason Fried. One post praised a car window design, so naturally some commenters jumped all over him, implying that he was a dickhead bragging about his fancy car. Another post praised a warning screen on a check-out process (disclosure: a client of ours) as an example of “defensive design” that sought to ensure that consumers were given options in their means of shipping sensitive goods. And the commenters piled on the company for covering its ass, not going nearly far enough to protect the consumer from all harm (to be perfect they would need to do things such as banning shipment on certain days of the week, going into the red by paying for the expensive shipping method despite not a single competitor doing this, etc.)!

I’m pretty sure if you had a comment field under Edvard Munch’s The Scream, right in the museum, the scrawling  commenters would pile on with all manner of scorn… “This is the most overrated piece of crap ever produced!!” “This guy can’t even draw a straight line!” Etc.

(2) The fact that I loved that announcer’s voice for months without realizing it was Patrick Stewart, I think, points to the sheer quality of the production. It also says this: hiring the best isn’t always prohibitively expensive. If you have a radical idea like “Hey, why not hire Captain Jean-Luc Picard for this job?,” why not price it out, and just do it? The best are out there, waiting for your call. And they’re the best for a reason.

(3) Speaking of The Scream, of course, at $120 million, the painting is overpriced, and what’s more, it isn’t the artist’s best work. But if the fact that something is a pop icon or the subject of controversy leads to more people visiting the gallery in Oslo to see all of Munch’s work, and developing an appreciation for art, isn’t that what it’s all about? Similarly, the producers of that commercial, when they are all done, will no doubt be able to point to other, much more creative, projects that they were able to work on because their day job allowed them to produce little pop vignettes like that. Back to the sex and cash theory. People do make advertising because it pays the bills, just as Munch drew portraits of wealthy patrons so they would pay him. Get over it.

Ha ha… I still can’t get over one of the comments on the National ad:  ”And who the hell hired the clown with the I-love-my-voice vocals? Talk about clueless on subtlety.”

Clueless indeed, YouTube commenting pro. Clueless indeed.

Yahoo: The Sloan of the Digital Age?

Monday, October 4th, 2010

Yahoo sells online advertising. That’s what they do for a living, first and foremost. They sell that advertising against content, both aggregated and unaggregated, and against various popular apps, like Yahoo Mail.

They came second in search. Yahoo Mail looks like it may be overtaken by GMail someday. They haven’t created a browser, haven’t created an operating system, never triumphed in video despite being well positioned to do so, and failed to position themselves to win in local and mobile, as their main competitor, Google, moved with lightning speed and ambition on maps, street view, and other audacious plans.

Back in 1999, when we created Traffick.com (The Guide to Portals), Yahoo had the lead or leadership momentum in things like search and mail. They were *the* portal in the minds of digerati (who felt MSN and AOL were lame), when that seemed important. And yes, that may still prove in the light of history to have been Yahoo’s high water mark.

But it’s certainly not all that complicated to describe what Yahoo is, and what it could be, even to this day. Even when their own people (CEO Carol Bartz) appear stumped when asked “what the company is,” or when seemingly treasonous memos from VP’s circulate (the famous “peanut butter manifesto” from Brad Garlinghouse, accusing the company of spreading itself too thin).

Both Bartz and Garlinghouse have taken a constructive outsider’s “tough love” view of how the company became bloated and confused in the process of doing what it does well. Too many years of taking insiders’ claims at face value led to an inflation of titles and the creation of too many meaningless positions.

When Bartz dropped one of her famous f-bombs in a very public interview in May, some people couldn’t believe she’d be allowed to lead a company with such a foul mouth, and one that airs dirty laundry in public to boot:

There were engineers in almost every country, and way too many product people. We had one product management person for every three engineers. We had a lot people telling engineers what to do but nobody f***ing doing anything. Excuse me. I knew that would slip out one of these times.

But wasn’t Bartz right? On one hand, Yahoo needs to be wary of chasing the cult of engineering-driven startup culture. They aren’t a startup, and they aren’t Google. But on the other hand, a lot of engineers are there, and a lot more need to be added. And inexplicable bloat in non-engineering supervisory positions around the world has to be addressed before Yahoo can move forward. Bartz is frustrated because Yahoo is a great company that spends too much time tripping over itself.

(There may also be some oversimplifications in Bartz’s methodology, to be sure. If her marching orders are “classic turnaround” vintage, her regime might potentially make international operations even less efficient by failing to nurture growth in these markets, subjecting country managers to stifling cost controls, just to show short term financial progress to the board.)

That these tough-minded managers can recognize the problem and turn things around should actually be a sign that there is hope. The “everything is great and I bleed purple” stuff is fine for morale, but…  they only work as long as the key management problems with the company are addressed.

When things are turned around, what will Yahoo actually do?

Actually, that’s something of a silly question, in that it is already doing an awful lot — and serving an awful lot of advertising against it. It needs to continue to do that.

Your mileage may vary, but personally I have some relationship with a variety of Yahoo products, services, and content areas. Others, I have largely mothballed. I don’t use Yahoo Mail very much anymore, because GMail became a standard, along with related apps like the Calendar. But I’d consider going back to it, for privacy reasons based on the “single overlord adoption threshold.” I don’t use Yahoo Finance anymore, because I find Google Finance easier to use. I do like Yahoo Sports. I use Flickr less than I used to, but I still use and like it.

I’m sure you have similar stories.

Originally I had considered titling this column Yahoo: The Canada of the Digital Age, for some good reasons. Canada, many of us think, is now looking relatively good as a place to live and work. It’s got no warm beaches, no Hollywood, no Obama, and no 500-year-old buildings. But the country weathered the financial crisis better than most; employment is strong; government is not particularly corrupt; and it three large cities are considered some of the most livable in the world. At a certain point, you realize you were sitting on more than you realized.

But I settled on the idea that Yahoo is like the Sloan of the Internet (yes Sloan is Canadian). In ‘The Rest of My Life,’ Sloan writes:

Am I gonna settle down
Am I gonna be
Someone who has to take
The rest of my life
To settle down?
Then I guess you caught me
Lying to myself
What kind of fool
Doesn’t think about it?

At a certain point, then, you can consider scouring the world for new and better experiences… or you can just go with the relationships you’ve already got.

The job ahead for Yahoo isn’t to convince users that they’re better than Google in every respect, or even in most respects. It’s simply to keep being themselves. Digital content and apps simply aren’t a winner-take-all market. Maybe you don’t want to be second to eBay in auctions or second to Amazon in books, but being the #2 ‘digital nation’ in users’ minds, that alternate place you go to also (other than Google), has a long future ahead of it, if Yahoo plays its cards right.

Here are a few ways that Yahoo can sharpen the edges around its existing identity and corporate culture so that everyone internally is on the same page as to the company’s unique Yahoo-ness:

  • First, do no harm. Yahoo has a unique opportunity to actually out-good the “Don’t Be Evil” leader, Google. It can start by noticing where the leader has crossed the line from bleeding edge to being a major invader of privacy. When Google reached critical mass, offering office software, mail, chat, phone services, desktop search, and much more, they theoretically took control of your whole digital footprint. Yahoo can come back and offer the promise of an alternative. Not one that is perfect; simply one that is less creepy.
  • Get the right people on the bus, by adding clarity to what Yahoo’s definition of ‘talent’ is. A crisper sense of mission is going to be needed to tie into the long term plan to begin attracting top talent again. But if Google is beginning to talk about its next mission statement in terms of being an “innovation company,” Yahoo must decide whether to chase this, or to become a very solid execution company. There is an awful lot of mileage you can get out of analyzing customer feedback and metrics for a company with as large an audience as Yahoo. Innovation can be soft innovation and progress can be towards recognizable goals within the universe of what is already important. Finding the next great thing? That shouldn’t be on the radar and there should be no 20% time, come up with new apps, type of culture at Yahoo… sorry. Big breakthroughs, if they are needed at all, should be achieved mainly through acquisition.
  • Build on legacy. Yahoo’s brand is powerful. Consumers actually trust Yahoo more than both Google and Microsoft, mainly because Yahoo is a fun company that hasn’t tried to take over every aspect of their lives. Yahoo can build on what are essentially benign relationships dating back as long as 15 years.
  • Stick with core products. Losing hope in Yahoo Mail, Flickr, etc. would be a bad move. Consumers are ripe for alternatives to the Borg-like leaders of the world.
  • Bold acquisitions to create lock-in opportunities. At the end of the day, the Portal Wars are about monopolistic media models 2.0. We’ve always said that around here. That’s why Yahoo can’t fully win unless they acquire channels they can exploit. Even if this means acquisitions are actually mergers and they become quite dilutive for existing shareholders. And part of the long-term logic involves giving things away to reap more lock-in advantages. Yes, the combined Yahoo 2.0 giant that I envision may have to raise an awful lot of money with a debt offering to be able to afford this, but the additional attention and loyalty assets they need are locked up in a variety of mid-sized companies that should consider selling out at this time. Deep subsidies or giveaways on products like domain names and handheld devices (read: Yahoo should acquire GoDaddy or Research in Motion) are part of the scenario here. In the future, Yahoo should also be pursuing partnerships with hotels, cities, airports, media companies, malls, and other touchpoints in consumer and business life.
  • Keep selling those ads and don’t hide that part of your culture. Yahoo will have to continue innovating around maximizing ad yield. Advertising is simply a poor business model for 95% of the companies that try to make a go from it. But they have the scale and the technology to do well here. Since that’s covered, plenty of business relationships with agencies and partners will be needed to keep Yahoo on the radar as the type of magnetic, positive publishing company that advertisers and their partners want to do business with.

Yahoo’s culture has always been very different from Google’s. It’s time for them (and us) to reaffirm that this is a good thing, because it gives users and partners an alternative.

A couple of years ago, I walked into the lobby of a mid-sized advertising agency, as they were kind enough to offer a boardroom for a trade association meeting. Lo and behold, in a waiting area, I saw two beautiful, overstuffed Yahoo-branded recliners. Perhaps a gift for doing business with Yahoo, probably in its core area of display ad sales. The total value of the furniture had to be in the neighborhood of $1,600. But it wasn’t just the largesse that struck me, it was the brashness. Google distributes small gifts to its partners and advertisers at holiday time – a beer fridge worth around $95 would be a typical fun, but modest, reward. They wouldn’t be caught dead doing some of the stuff Yahoo has done over the years. It’s just a cultural difference. And the thing about it is, both cultures have a place in the industry.

To quote Sloan, “you’d have to be a fool not to think about it.”

The Digital Marketing Future: Listenomics, or Creep Factor?

Monday, September 27th, 2010

Previous columns in this series have argued that paid search is the most sophisticated current version of a true direct response “machine,” and that companies typically under-invest because they fail to see long-term predictable profit potential inherent in the “marketing asset.”

Meanwhile, under the “chaos scenario” of rapid deterioration in traditional media and advertising budgets, it’s tempting to try to port old media models uncritically into a digital form. That won’t work – at least not without old-fashioned arm-twisting and elbow-bending. Frankly, it’s ironic that a significant portion of Google’s future is tied to old-media-comes-online advertising that’s more representative of a Yahoo-like vision. Specifically: anyone who deals with Google now knows that its reps can’t repeat the phrase “YouTube home page takeover” often enough. Is this really the future of media, or its past? Of course, brands will buy some of this media, but it will be interesting to watch price trends now that everyone’s being conditioned to measure response.

A variety of formats beyond search could hit the jackpot in the future. Some may have legs because they allow for extreme and/or measurable personalization and targeting, while somehow keeping in consumers’ good books from a “creep factor” and “don’t bug me” standpoint, as search does. Facebook is the most commonly cited example. For some reason, people allow Facebook deeply into their lives – for now. That seems to be a prerequisite for expecting people to pay attention to commercial messages.

Bob Garfield calls this the “Listenomics Age.” In typically modest fashion, he calls it “the future of everything.” In this age, he writes in “The Chaos Scenario,” “survival means institutionalizing dialogue with all of your potential constituencies and sometimes total strangers for the purpose of market research, product development, customer relationships, corporate image and transactions themselves.”

Of all of these, he prioritizes the last, “because when you sell goods or services, you get money.”

In short, if you optimize highly targeted digital direct response campaigns and conversations, and other aspects of related buy cycle functions, you are the future.

It’s immensely troubling to some actors that a whole bunch of the “old stuff” might be going away. Hence a steady flow of name-calling and rationalizations.

Randy Rothenberg, president of the Interactive Advertising Bureau, claims that websites have been “based on the direct-response foundation, infus[ing] the environment with ugliness and clutter.” The fact that direct response “has no institutional concern for aesthetic, regardless of what the long-term effect on the brand is,” seems to point easily to a remedy: better online ads, a creative revolution, and more impressive TV-like websites and interactive geegaws. Thank heavens, right? Transactional plodding, letting the data ask the questions and seek the answers…is so boring.

This flies in the face of what’s driving the current chaos, though. Consumers now avoid advertising. Only in advertising agency fantasies do they regularly and consistently seek it out because it’s so “creative.”

Yes, there are notable exceptions. Anecdotes about the integrated marketing juggernaut that is the Old Spice Guy are cute, but only serve to prove the point that old media and old agencies will spend just about any amount to temporarily revive certain dead old brands, as a case study in their apparent effectiveness. The resulting social media chatter is great window-dressing, but don’t be fooled; watch the aggregate numbers across the whole advertising industry. If this stuff really worked, you could sell foot powder and baking soda with a shirtless model. In fact, all media would be all shirtless, all the time.

In fact, there’s no inherent contradiction between creating beauty and fantasy in your brand, and eliminating one specific manifestation of “aesthetic” (short, expensive-to-create films broadcast at great expense to large numbers of people who’d maybe rather not watch). In reality, traditional advertising might be considered an extremely inefficient form of customer acquisition (and a nonstarter at relationship building and dialogue) begging to be replaced by something else. There are hundreds of other ways to build creative and aesthetic touchpoints into your encounters with prospects and customers. Start with catalogues, retail stores, well-produced video content from people who work at the company, product design, Web apps and environments for existing customers promoted through e-mail, social media, and traditional media, and more.

Permission Still Matters

The key to unlocking all of this? It’s still acquiring customers, through efficient means, so you have permission: an appropriately wide, appropriately targeted, and cost-effective footprint for attempts to drive recurring transactions.

Permission used to mean opt-in e-mail. Now the means of connection are more diffused: it’s also Twitter followers, Facebook communities, RSS subscribers, and much more. The most explicit form of permission, though, is being on a customer list.

Today, we’re seeing more sophisticated probabilistic data driving direct marketing. When I say that I expect the value of the keyword “pewter duck” to be $0.68 at 2:00 a.m. in Ohio, I’m marketing based on probabilities, informed by past and related data. With the advent of technology like Google’s Conversion Optimizer and similar marketing algorithms, many other variables go into the mix – often inside a black box.

“Creep Factor” Creep

But where will consumers draw the line? It’s a lot easier than it once was to hit up against people’s creep radar. Spyware and scumware were once nearly mainstream forms of advertising, but now consumers are beginning to understand the nuances of privacy. Search and navigation retargeting seem relatively innocuous to me – if I once searched for “2011 land rover” or almost bought a DeWalt nail gun before abandoning the cart, advertisers can take that information and show me ads that are more relevant and more likely to convert than the garden variety ad. But as reported recently in The New York Times, some consumers perceive search retargeting as “creepy” because the ads are “following you around.” Regardless, the power of data will eventually win out, even if targeting methodologies might have to take twists and turns to avoid major fallout.

Call it synthetic direct communications, if you will, or anonymous personalization. This wild-card proxy for permission doesn’t require any type of action or explicit permission other than accepting generally accepted privacy policies in your digital life. You don’t even have to be an e-mail address, or an identifiable person with a past history, just simply someone performing actions that are statistically similar to others who have exhibited buying behavior. You’re an IP address, at best. A “user session,” hopefully. And one that types a search query, ideally. And past creepy, you’ve allowed cookies into your life that have tracked nearly every ad you’ve seen and responded to in the past year or more. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. That’s simply “statistically useful behavior” to the marketer; for smaller companies, it’s impossible to gather without a market-maker like Google (or other behemoth) facilitating the process.

What Should Companies Do?

So, what will work best for your company? How can you build your own private “database of intentions” so companies like Google, Amazon, and your competitors don’t hoard all the data-mining fun?

  • Simple. Start with your website! Work on information architecture, navigation and findability, and testing landing pages so they convert better.
  • Enact a long-term plan to update your corporate communication style. This must permeate your Web presence, social media presence, corporate culture, and public relations approach. Moreover, you must simply communicate more.
  • Invest quite a bit more in paid search than you might have expected. Companies who do this show a long-term pattern of winning big. Possibly the biggest badge of honor in e-commerce is getting to a point where your paid search spend has grown 10 times or 50 times over a three to five year period. If it grows that much, it’s probably doing so because it’s working predictably, every day.
  • Install a widely-used Web analytics platform and cherry-pick relevant, actionable reports. Don’t allow ponderous “Web analytics practices” to be built as empires within the company; trust entrepreneurial uses of data over those intended to stifle marketing efforts or create needless silos.
  • Don’t do half a job. There is plenty of temptation to cut corners by placing too much faith in the proverbial non-professional dabbler, by “crowdsourcing,” by procrastinating, or using out-of-the-box silver bullets. But the client data I have in front of me says unequivocally that no company manager or owner, with the help of one jack-of-all-trades who works down the hall, can undergo a complete website architecture overhaul, test pages for improved conversion, build, test, analyze, and improve a 50,000 keyword campaign, and assess all the relevant tools, technologies, and relationships. Professional help isn’t cheap, but the good news is, serious investment in building an enterprise-class digital response asset is significantly cheaper than throwing a million dollars at ego-driven brand-recall style media.

Conclusion

In this four-part series, have I effectively made the claim that direct response marketing (especially through channels like search, not thought by some to be effective means of building a business, but simply “demand fulfilment”) and the building of private silos of customers, permission, and marketing response data are moving to displace what was previously thought to be an effective means of demand creation, namely big brand advertising?

Well, it doesn’t matter what I say. We’re in a chaos scenario. Companies that make the right moves will emerge much stronger than those that invest in wasteful tributes to the past.

Amazingly, considering all the advertising abuse they’ve taken online as well as off, consumers haven’t fled all commercial messages. In particular, they’ve embraced those served with search results. And in cases where consumers seem wishy-washy, search engines behave in a proactive, ameliorative fashion – they typically replace low-CTR ads with higher-CTR ones. They’re even willing to show white space against many search queries, just to maintain user loyalty to the medium.

Prophet of old media doom Garfield concedes that “the double-edged sword of search is that it captures shoppers in the process of shopping, but does little to build brand awareness for the general population.” But that argument isn’t to be mistaken as an argument in favor of the old mass broadcast models: “On the other hand, building brand awareness for the general population is wildly inefficient.”

Traditional ad agencies and old-media-inspired ad networks have done a poor job of helping companies navigate this sea change. Little wonder: it isn’t in their DNA.

Companies like Google, Facebook, Omniture, Acquisio, Trade Desk, and Clickable are at the forefront of the new order; so are e-commerce advertisers, from giants like Zappos to start-up hopefuls like Greeno Bambino. As Garfield puts it, “in order to exploit the Internet’s phenomenal capacity for targeting and optimizing messages in ads and on websites, advertisers will have to invest vast resources in information infrastructure – hardware, software, and flesh-and-bloodware – to crunch the vast amount of data that will be pouring in every second of every day.”

This column originally appeared at ClickZ on September 10, 2010. Reprinted by permission.

Canada: Do Not Call, or Do Not Care?

Thursday, July 8th, 2010

Canada’s version of the Do Not Call anti-telemarketing legislation (offering homeowners a chance to sign up for a national Do Not Call registry) has been a flop, according to reports.

300,000 complaints; 11 fines; total collected: $250.

Come on, Canada’s marketers and regulators. We can do better. We can do more to speak out against outdated practices, against intrusive advertising, against flouting opt-outs. There are plenty of legitimate marketing methods. Why are we allowing the actions of a few to discredit our entire profession?

As a first stop, our national marketing organizations can stop lobbying to weaken such legislation in the first place. Two years’ experience have shown: it’s plenty weak enough.

Yet Another Blather About Why Performance Digital Advertising is a Crack Cocaine of Iterative Delight, Whereas Spray & Pray Traditional is Not

Wednesday, June 16th, 2010

Driving around in the beautiful sunshine, you tend to see a lot of billboards.

And if you’re an AdWords junkie, you tend to notice a lot of ads that would never work if their performance was tested.

Contrast that with the stinging pain of real time feedback from digital advertising prospects who must click (let alone, buy).

We don’t get to fire up nearly as many new, unusual paid search accounts as we used to; proportionally, we work on accounts for a longer time and often inherit accounts that have been poorly or inadequately managed in the past. Fresh new ones are a challenge, to say the least.

The fun of rolling out new ads, keywords, etc. pointing to “virgin” landing page never gets old. Well, actually, it’s no fun. (The fun part is when you manage to make headway out of the Quality Score Doghouse and kick competitor butt, leading to client profit. :) )

In the ‘no fun’ file this week, I got to face up to the fact that certain keywords just wouldn’t work. Certain landing pages that had poor headings and confusing cues to users. And ads that didn’t merit a click. On the flipside, finding what does work is more invigorating than a shower in a waterfall with Irish Spring Soap. “Manly yes, but I like it too!” OK, OK, tee hee, have your fun. Moving on…

Back to the traditional no-test world of “ad creative.”

How do you like the tagline on the Audi A5 Cabriolet billboard:  SPF meets OMG.

Now if you happen to “get” the ad right away, you can appreciate that you’ll be out in the sun with the top down, in a car that is so, like OMG, good-looking it will blow your toupee off.

Unfortunately stuff like that doesn’t usually work any better for people hurtling by at 70mph than it does for people scanning a page of SERP’s quickly. How can I prove that? Well I can’t! And the people who wrote that can’t prove it does work.

I’m here to posit that “SPF meets OMG” seems really plausible if you wrote it, but you lose 70% of the audience that is actually reading it. SPF? Most people know what it is, but the point is it doesn’t *read* well. As logical as it is when you work through it, abbreviation-laden, “clever” ad copy is simply inscrutable to those quickly scanning. “Am I applying lotion to the windshield? Does the car actually come with sunblock technology? I thought I read about that somewhere!” And you’ve whizzed by (in your existing, less flashy, vehicle) without even considering why some 14-year-old girl has written the remainder of the ad.

What’s worse by far is that the writer has actually smuggled an objection into an advertisement. The fact that you’ll have to slap on greasy sunscreen every time you get inside your vehicle might have just convinced half of the remaining 30% (5% of whom are in the market for a convertible in their lifetime) to think twice about buying a convertible at all. “Won’t sun damage compromise my efforts to impress a date? Isn’t that greasy crap going to get on the (white) leather seats, and become a magnet for dirt?”

Your billboard is now, at best, addressing 0.75% of the drivers on the road — and at that, only to consider buying an Audi if they (anytime in their life) purchase a new convertible. That could have been 1.5%. The ad sucks. And you haven’t even tested which color of Audi might have the most positive impact on those viewing the ad. Probably, that hasn’t even occurred to you.

AdWords taught us all that. We know it because we have data.

Traditional advertisers, it appears, are still running on fumes.

Fortunately, that billboard — which could be considered a hybrid of an ad and a landing page all rolled into one — will be testable in the future. Worlds colliding? I can’t wait.

 


Traffick - The Business of Search Engines & Web Portals

 


Home | Categories | Archive | About Us | Internet Marketing Consulting | Contact Us
© 1999 - 2013, Traffick.com. All Rights Reserved